DEFENDING PROTESTERS
In December 2019 this group submitted a detailed dossier of evidence to the Met Police seeking a criminal investigation into the activities of named political figures who pursue policies that contribute to mass death and suffering caused by climate breakdown. We argue that key political figures would have changed their policies had the police commenced a criminal investigation in accordance with the International Criminal Court Act 2001. If politicians had changed their policies, no one would have been compelled to undertake any form of dynamic climate action. CGAN argues that it is therefore entirely the fault of the criminal justice system that people are now undertaking action to stop climate breakdown.
In 2019 the Met Police could have acted upon ICCA 2001 but refused. They claimed that, for there to be any prospect of a successful prosecution, there had to be intent to commit the crimes. We showed that the legislation tackles crimes of direct intent and oblique intent (article 30.2(b)). Oblique intent applies in the case of mass death and suffering caused by the policies that drive climate breakdown – politicians know it is impossible to achieve their objectives without mass killing and harm occurring.
In 2023 CGAN proved its case in detailed correspondence with the Directorate of Legal Services at the Met Police. The Met Police still refused to act. Very senior staff within the Met Police know the police have perverted the course of justice by refusing to apply the law. The Met Police have done this, despite knowing their actions are attracting the attention of judges and despite knowing climate breakdown is a major UK national security threat (AMOC collapse will decimate UK agricultural production).
CGAN argues it is not possible for climate defenders to receive a fair trial when the defendant only ended up in court because the police had perverted the course of justice (by refusing to apply UK legislation).
There is an additional point for defendants to note: –
Article 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (brought into UK jurisdiction by ICCA 2001) imposes an obligation upon certain individuals to act to stop genocide and crimes against humanity (genocide in this context is the annihilation of low-lying island states). CGAN argues the legislation applies to most UK citizens.
The implication for the courts hearing trials is that the defendant is required in law to act to stop the killing but, when does so, is prosecuted.
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 assures people the right to a fair trial, but that is not possible where the defendant was compelled to take the step they did due to unlawful behaviour of officers within the criminal justice system. Climate protesters are advised to seek the dismissal of the case against them but, if committed to trial, to use the witness statement CGAN provides to show a jury why they should be acquitted.
If a climate protester wishes to plead guilty to a charge, the evidence provided by CGAN can be used as part of a mitigation statement, explaining that dynamic protest is justified where the police could have intervened to stop the killings and appalling threat but had refused to do so.
There is an additional point for courts to note. Both the former Met Police Commissioner and the current Commissioner have only ever lobbied government for tougher legislation against climate defenders.
Both Commissioners must have known climate breakdown had the potential to decimate the UK population, but it is believed they have never sought tough legislation to stop those business, media and political figures who cause mass death, mass suffering and have the begun the process of extermination (low-lying island states).
The accusation against the Met Police, to be considered by all judges, is that senior officers knew ICCA 2001 imposed a burden upon The Met to act to stop those who contribute to the killing. Senior officers pretended the legislation didn’t allow them to intervene, but the Met Commissioners never sought new legislation to plug the legislative gap they falsely claimed existed.
The Met has behaved in bad faith throughout and can rightly be accused of perverting the course of justice.
Lawyers acting for people previously convicted for climate protest cases should consider an appeal against conviction.